PV Companies claiming Proprietary Info.,.. "We don't need to submit" 2

[structuralsteelhead]

Any of you third party plan checkers facing this issue? I perform structural design and analysis services occasionally for PV systems,...mostly rooftops. In addition, I also provide third party plan checks of the same. Recently, I've been asked to give my blessing to a system that varies significantly from any cataloged, engineered, tested, or documented racking arrangement thus provided by the PV racking company in question. They have claimed "Proprietary Information",...no specific section/member or connection details and supporting calculations are apparently going to be submitted by the PV racking manufacturer. The company has chosen not to respond further to any more of my comments concerning their non-typical (cataloged/engineered) racking arrangements. The drawings showing the racking system will be stamped by a professional engineer. This plan check has taken months because of the failure of the manufacturer's cooperation in producing engineering data. Has anyone had the "Proprietary Information,..not for public consumption" card played while performing plan checks? In my opinion, I'm not "the public" when performing a plan check for my client, who in this case is a major county in the state of CA. Thanks in advance for any comments. Bill

 

[IDS]

But even with calculations, unless you, as a plan reviewer, are going the whole way and are going to redesign the full frame (full analysis, full calculations, etc.) you won't know from reading someone's calc's whether everything is right.

I agree, I just don't see the benefit of getting the calcs. They are more likely to mislead than anything. Confirming that the design shown on the drawings complies with all code requirements through an independent analysis seems to me to be both the best way to ensure that something has not been overlooked, and the quickest and simplest way to do the job.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[BigInch]

"Reject" until your boss takes the rubber stamp away from you.

Only put off until tomorrow what you are willing to die having left undone. - Pablo Picasso

 

[racookpe1978]

In this situation though, with the calc's being ever-not-so-subtly kept in the desk drawer by the company, I would demand them - if not to review them thoroughly - but just to ensure that they were actually present, and that the calc's presented actually covered the same design configuration that is going to be installed on your client's building.

"Green energy" government-funded programs are notorious for political corruption in planning, spec's, purchases, and installation. That side, the planning and "community-development side" is where the money and interest and speculation is - NOT in the long-term operation or maintenance or even profitability. Few have been successful in operations after the construction and "planning" money has been spent back at the corporate and political and regulatory/university headquarters.

 

[msquared48]

JAE:

I can associate with what you are saying, really.

I have served as a plans checker for a major city though in the distant past (very distant now). I can see what you say applying more to smaller jurisdictions than larger ones as the smaller ones are less likely to hire structural engineers for reviewers. Having done that for a major jurusdiction - the City of Anchorage - unless I am aware of the engineering competency of the EOR of the project, I do like to spot check the calcs to build up a level of professional trust in ability. I do not assume that all the bells and whistles have been addressed when in that mode. Difference of opinion and approach I guess.

As for the other matter, I am that EOR for the project and was left out of the loop here as the owner chose to believe the contractor and inspector rather than me. The owner knows better now, but it's too late. Now I have to try to solve the problem when I was not at fault here and that pisses me off. I feel ignored and devalued, and, yes, cheapened, to mention a few things. Some people just either don't know how to read plans, or are engineer wannabees, and should not be contractors, convincing the owners that they know better than the engineer. This guy had not idea of why I did what I did, thinking he had the better solution, which created all sorts of legal problems for the owner, with both the county and the adjacent land owner.

Hope things are going OK for you...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[structuralsteelhead]

Thanks again to all participating in this thread. Interesting arguments, well defended. Speaking more specifically about a particular project, let's say one which might pose a significant loss of life and risk to public safety I can't help but feel we would all agree that a system of checks and balances is a good thing. We, as engineers, are like a box of chocolates when it comes to experience. We also may or may not have had the absolute luck and privilege of having a good mentor along the way (a topic for another day). Most of the time our companies are awarded a job because they've underbid another companies' 'absolute lowest can do bid' - by half (also a topic for another day). With the numerous code prescriptive requirements only satisfied through the careful and thorough production of an enormous calculation set, at least a macro check of our calculation package/process must be warranted. Personally, I have had independent reviewers ask me what I've perceived to be silly a question because in my mind they really didn't know any better,..."that load combination would not even begin to govern," I think to myself. On the flip side had experienced engineering reviewers ask me eye opening questions because they did know better - better than me, or maybe even my mentor. I've appreciated these comments and/or responses to 'my' silly review questions as I became a better engineer that day. I didn't feel my purpose was cheapened but rather became even more respectful of the daunting task it is to become a sound structural engineer mastering all material and building codes. A task I would imagine I'll continue to pursue up until retirement. Gotta show'em some calcs for some projects in my opinion. Just too many even solely engineering ingredients in the soup, e.g., budgets, experience, ethics,.....not to mention owner, supplier, contractor pressures. So yes,...Show me the calcs. I'll show you mine!

Funny,...just checking back in today with the intent to leave one last comment on this thread regarding my original post (see way above) and update all on the outcome of this reviewer's final actions. (For the record, SEOR maintains liability, I maintain my dignity and reputation) To recap,.....I did not agree to "accept with caveats" as my client, who retained me to do the review, encouraged me to do. I held fast to a request for additional calculations or a specific PV review and approval letter authored by the (until this time silent) SEOR. This, of course, sent a 'major' PV player reeling in pain and agony, "We've never had to do this before, you're asking for too many details, we've given you enough information, delays will occur,...." and so on, and so forth.

News as of today. New calculations on the way,... not surprisingly to me with revised construction documents showing additional anchorage locations, doubling and tripling in numbers in some locations.

 

[hokie66]

structuralsteelhead,
I have just read this thread. Welcome to the site, and I hope you will continue to participate.

Your last post, to me, illustrates the most important two attributes an engineer can have: judgement and integrity.

 

[Teguci]

Someone needs to question this SEOR and put him through the ringer.

 

[graybeach]

My government agency (power utility) is always installing stuff like this and, just last week I reviewed some calcs and drawings for a roof top microwave antenna installation. You better believe we require sealed calculations to be submitted, and we require them to be done and checked by two different people. We have the deep pockets and will pay dearly if something flies off a roof and kills someone. And, by far, the most common mistake I come across is improper consideration of the load path for laterally loaded antennas, brackets, PV attachments, etc.

JAE - you would not believe how many hacks are out there sealing documents. Judging from your posts over the years, I'm certain you are not one of them. But we would still need to see your calcs.

Interestingly, the NTSB report partially faulted Minnesota DOT for not catching the error in the I35 gusset plate design. In a way, I think this is a sad dilutiion of a PE seal, but there you have it.

 

[IDS]

Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen anyone address the question of what is the benefit of seeing the calculations. To follow through someone else's calculations line by line will take longer than doing the analysis yourself, and is much more likely to result in a significant error being missed, so what is the point?

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[hokie66]

Doug,
I think JAE did argue that point, and I agree that for most "plan reviewers", the calculations would mean nothing. It depends on the qualifications and experience of the reviewer. For in house verification of work, I always insisted on seeing the calculations. Just seeing the quality of the organisation and logic of the calculations goes a long way toward gaining confidence in the design. You don't have to follow line by line (or ream after ream of computer output) to know what to look for.

It sounds like in the case reported here that the calculations either didn't exist, were incorrect, or were not suitable for submission. The OP's insistence on seeing them has led to a better result.

 

[JAE]

It depends on the qualifications and experience of the reviewer.

I agree with that.

Per graybeach - I think it is correct that for specialized structural entities, where the owner many times knows more about their system than the engineer (state bridge depts., graybeach's firm, for example) perhaps submitting calculations offers the owner a chance to provide QA on the project.

My perspective is more toward building designs where many times reviewers are either city inspector-types or outside structural engineers. And with these, many times (not all) they don't go through the full calculations anyway.

Good thread.

 

[msquared48]

As to reviewing each and every detail of the calculations...
H%^^ no!

I just picked and chose what concerned me considering the structure being reviewed, digging and verifying. If I found things that in my opinion I should not have been found, I dug deeper. If not, I didn't review beyond my norm.

I have seen engineers, good engineers, make mistakes more than once, including myself. No one is perfect, and a system of checks and balances is good in my opinion.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[graybeach]

Even in my own company, "reviewing" is required but not at all defined. I've had complaints from management that I should not have so many comments on sealed documents, and once I actually had a 60 foot long steel track fly off the side of a cliff due to failed brackets (thankfully no one was hurt) and got a good talking to for it. In the latter case, the track was not part of what I was asked to review but I still sort of got blamed. I keep photos of the latter at the ready so I can quickly respond to the former.

I pretty much do exactly what Mike does. I look at the load path, do a few spot checks, and dig deeper as required.